This article was downloaded by: [Thammasat University Libraries]On: 09 October 2014, At: 18:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Political Science EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upse20

Teaching and Learning Democracy:An Analysis of Undergraduates' LivedExperiences of Political EngagementR.W. Hildreth aa Southern Illinois University-CarbondalePublished online: 22 Sep 2006.

To cite this article: R.W. Hildreth (2006) Teaching and Learning Democracy: An Analysis ofUndergraduates' Lived Experiences of Political Engagement, Journal of Political Science Education,2:3, 285-302

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15512160600840517

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teaching and Learning Democracy: An Analysisof Undergraduates’ Lived Experiences of

Political Engagement

R.W. HILDRETH

Southern Illinois University-Carbondale

This article presents the findings from a qualitative field study of students’ ‘‘livedexperiences’’ in the University of Minnesota political science course ‘‘Democracyand Education’’ and practicum ‘‘Coaching Public Achievement.’’ This study hastwo key purposes: to better understand how undergraduates learn through theseexperiences of democratic action and to better understand how this course and prac-ticum foster political engagement. The findings of the study highlight that mostundergraduates indeed gained a better understanding of the relationship betweentheory and practice, developed political skills, especially group process skills, andexperienced a greater sense of motivation to be active and politically involved citi-zens, including a stronger sense of political identity. It is evident that they now thinkdifferently about politics and themselves as public actors; it is not as clear whetherstudents translated this into further political engagement.

Keywords democratic education, political engagement, service-learning

It’s hard because in some way I think the skills that come out of a situ-ation like this are just difficult to define. Not even to define, but they’redifficult to see because it’s not like one day I learned this specifically andnow I can do that specifically. It’s more through the 12 weeks, I learnedtiny little idiosyncrasies of how to work with these kids and now I feelmuch more competent, but there wasn’t like a drastic turning point.

Isaac, Democracy and Education Student1

Over the past ten years, research on civic engagement and service-learning has madeimportant gains in the documenting what students learn (see Billig 2000). This bodyof research has shown that service-learning, when properly implemented, enhancesacademic learning and fosters political and civic engagement (e.g. Hepburn 2000;Giles and Eyler 1997; Waterman 1997; Markus et al. 1993). Recent reviews ofthe state of research on service-learning have also identified the ‘‘best practices’’—experiential learning is more powerful with guided reflection, connection tocourse content, student responsibility over projects, longer time periods, andaction or projects with community members (Billig 2000; Hepburn 2000; Eylerand Giles 1997).

Address correspondence to R.W. Hildreth, Department of Political Science, SouthernIllinois University—Carbondale, Mailcode 4501, Carbondale, IL 62901. E-mail: roudy@siu.edu

Journal of Political Science Education, 2:285–302, 2006Copyright # 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1551-2169DOI: 10.1080/15512160600840517

285

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

05 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

While these have been important findings for both research and practice, I havealways had the sense that this research misses some of the subtlety and richness ofundergraduates’ civic engagement experiences. What, for instance, should we makeof the developmental process outlined in the beginning quote? Much of the learningthat occurs ‘‘in the field’’ is difficult to name and assess because it is exactly whatIsaac seems to be describing: situational, emergent, and cocreative (see Wenger1998). In this qualitative study of undergraduates’ political engagement experiences,I found that it is exactly this subtle and often messy work in the ‘‘real’’ world withcommunity members that students report as exciting and meaningful. However, themessiness of these forms of learning do not always map onto standard civic measuresof knowledge, attitudes, skills, and dispositions (Patrick 2000). In effect, many ofthese standard measures examine what students learn, but they miss the storyinvolved in how they learn. I argue that a better understanding such experientiallearning processes are important domains of inquiry for the scholarship of teachingand learning. In addition to measuring ‘‘impact,’’ it is also important to understandthe processes of democratic education in order to improve pedagogic practice.

In this article, I present the findings from a qualitative study of undergraduates’‘‘lived experiences’’ in two consecutive editions (2002–2003 and 2003–2004) of thepolitical science course ‘‘Democracy and Education’’ and its practicum ‘‘CoachingPublic Achievement.’’2 ‘‘Democracy and Education’’ is an upper-level politicaltheory course at the University of Minnesota. This semester-length course attractsapproximately 20 students and meets one day per week. Organized as a seminar,the course focuses on the critical reading and discussion of major texts in politicaltheory that investigate theoretical, practical, and political dimensions of the relation-ship between democracyand education. The course includes an integrated year-longpracticum where undergraduates serve as ‘‘coaches’’ in Public Achievement: anexperiential civic education program.3 Public Achievement is different from manyservice-learning approaches in political science. Instead of just working for nonpro-fits, Public Achievement coaches are experiential educators: they guide teams of mid-dle and high school students who devise and carry out their own political actionprojects in the ‘‘real world.’’ The central assumption is that students will better learnabout citizenship and democracy by educating and guiding younger citizens on polit-ical action projects. In this sense, the course employs a multifaceted pedagogy oflearning about—while concurrently implementing—democratic education. Morespecifically, the course has three stated learning outcomes for its undergraduate stu-dents: 1) gain a deeper understanding of the nature of and relationships between the-ories of democracy, citizenship, and education; 2) develop a degree of mastery ofthree general political skill-sets (democratic group facilitation, managing politicalaction projects, and experiential teaching and learning); and 3) demonstrate pro-civicmotivations.

This study has two key purposes: to better understand how undergraduates learnthrough these experiences of democratic action and to better understand how thiscourse and practicum foster political engagement. The findings of the study highlightthat most undergraduates indeed gained a better understanding of the relationshipbetween theory and practice, developed political skills, especially group processskills, and experienced a greater sense of motivation to be active and politicallyinvolved citizens, including a stronger sense of political identity.

On the basis of the study findings, I identify two educational processes thataccount for the mastery of these outcomes. First, the difficulty and ambiguity of

286 R. W. Hildreth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

05 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

working democratically with young people played a central role in how under-graduates learned through the course and met course learning objectives. Mostundergraduates experienced a ‘‘crisis’’ of ‘‘not knowing what to do,’’ which stemmedfrom the conflict between understanding what they ‘‘should be doing’’ (the theory ofdemocratic education) and not being able to (the surprises and twists of workingwith young people). This crisis represented a key moment for both student learningand group democratic practice, as undergraduates shifted from asking ‘‘why isn’t thisworking?’’ to asking their students, in effect, ‘‘how can we work together?’’ Second,through learning how to work together with their group and guiding projects,undergraduates were inspired by young people to become more politically activethemselves. Both of these processes have important implications for our understand-ing of how democratic education fosters political engagement.

The article is organized as follows. The next section outlines the research meth-ods used, detailing how I assess skill mastery and development of pro-civic motiva-tions. The third section presents key findings. This third section is divided into threeparts that detail: (A) narratives of understanding the relationship between theoryand practice, (B) narratives of political skills development, and (C) narratives ofdeveloping pro-civic motivations. The final section presents my discussion of thefindings.

Research Methods

The primary method to assess the learning outcomes of the course was in-depth indi-vidual and group interviews. Ten students from each consecutive versions of thiscourse were interviewed twice (2002–2003 and 2003–2004).4 The first interviews wereconducted in small groups (2–3) at the end of the first semester. These interviewsasked undergraduates about their experiences in the course and coaching PublicAchievement. Group interviews allowed students to bring their different perspectivesinto conversation, and sometimes to disagree, in order to establish the context of thecourse and practicum. At the end of the second semester, students were interviewedindividually to discuss learning, changes in the experience, and personal behavioralchange outside of the course and practicum.

External researchers conducted the interviews in the hope that under-graduates might be (more) honest about the class. Interviewers used hermeneutic-phenomenological methods to systematically ask participants to describe their ‘‘livedexperiences’’ of being in this class and practicum (Kvale 1996; van Manen 1990;Stewart and Mickunas 1990). Based on respondents’ descriptions, phenomenologicalinterviews are open-ended and conversational, using follow-up questions to disclosetargeted outcomes (Kvale 1996, 19). The interviews are semistructured in terms offour levels of questioning=listening to hear ‘‘changes’’ that result from experience(See Appendix A). The first level asks interviewees for detailed descriptions of theirexperiences participating in the class and Public Achievement. Based on thesedescriptions, the second level asks interviewees to name what they had learned, withprobes to specify and to clarify relevant skills, understandings, and motivations.The third level asks whether interviewees ‘‘tried out’’ or transferred what they hadlearned in different domains of their lives. This is an important ‘‘test’’ for document-ing political engagement; in effect, students ‘‘demonstrate mastery’’ by transferringskills to new contexts. The fourth level asks interviewees ‘‘if they are different’’because of this experience. Follow-up questions probe whether they see themselves

Teaching and Learning Democracy 287

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

05 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

differently as a political actor or agent. This level of questioning seeks to disclose anychanges in students’ sense of civic self.

On each level, undergraduates were asked to connect self-reported changes backto their descriptions of experiences in the course and practicum. By paying carefulattention to the details of experience, narrative, and language frames, interviewerscan hear ‘‘change’’ and test face validity. In other words, when a respondent reportsthat they ‘‘learned something’’ or ‘‘mastered a skill,’’ follow-up questions ask themto describe in detail exactly when and how this occurred, as well as to describe otherplaces in which they used this new skill. Finally, students are asked to make explicitconnections between the initial learning and subsequent use. With careful attentionto these successive steps, this method yields a high degree of validity to documentmastery of skills and personal change with limited generalizability of findings toan entire group of students.

The interviews were taped and transcribed. The transcripts and journals wereanalyzed thematically and in terms of narrative development. Thematic analysisinvolves identifying the outstanding elements of experiences that were commonacross interviews (Kvale 1996). Narrative analysis examines the particularities ofindividual stories and the described mastery of skills (Dreyfus and Dreyfus 2004;Clandinin and Connelly 2000; Polkinghorne 1988). It examines the developmentof experiences over time, in context, and in relation to the subjects’ biography.Through both of these methods of analysis, interviews offered an inventory of themost salient facets of experience in the course and practicum, and how those experi-ences contributed to learning and personal change.

Study Findings

The discussion of findings is divided into three sections. Each section highlightsimportant common themes across all interviews. The first section describes under-graduates deepening understandings of the relationship between theory and practice.The second section focuses on narratives of skill mastery; specifically in how studentslearned to facilitate democratic groups. The third section examines narratives of per-sonal change, particularly in how undergraduates understood themselves as citizens.

Deeper Understandings of Theory and Practice

The course and practicum are designed as an integrated learning experience in whichcourse readings, class discussions, writing assignments, coaching Public Achieve-ment, and debriefings all work together to foster undergraduates’ political engage-ment. The Tuesday class is typical of many upper division theory courses with itsfocus on critically reading, discussing, and writing about major texts in democraticand educational theory (e.g. Arendt, Dewey, and Freire). Both instructors emphasizethat students carefully and critically read the texts, and put them into conversationwith each other and the practical experiences of the class and practicum. The read-ings from this course offer a number of different and sometimes conflicting theoreti-cal perspectives. Students were asked to critically compare different theories in orderto construct their own ‘‘theory of democratic education.’’ This shifting of perspec-tives also served to model different styles of coaching and democratic interaction.

Coaching a group of young people in Public Achievement (PA) was experiencedas fluid, emergent, ambiguous, and, above all, difficult. Public Achievement is

288 R. W. Hildreth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

05 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

difficult to coach because it is driven by students—they decide what project to workon and how to carry it out. The coach’s role is to guide the process so that teammembers learn through this process. All coaches must negotiate the tension betweenletting the young people drive the group and being the person who is responsible thatthe group doesn’t drive (too far) off the road. This tension makes the coaching roleambiguous and sometimes contradictory. All undergraduates interviewed demon-strated a keen grasp of the key principles of PA—they were cognizant of the factthat PA was supposed to be about democratic action, young people exercisingpower, and learning about themselves in the process. This, however, rarely workedout in practice.

This combination of shifting theoretical perspectives and difficulties of coachingserved as one of the key sources for developing deeper understandings of theory andpractice. All students were highly cognizant of the ways in which the course incor-porated different theoretical perspectives, but they reached different judgmentsabout the usefulness of the strategy. For example, both Andrew and Bob saw greatvalue in shifting between different theories about democracy and citizenship:

Andrew: Well, that’s why the different approaches worked well. [That]the living through experience and learning experience . . .was . . . the foundation of the class was something thatI understood really well. But [the instructor] brought in con-flicting view points, so you never got too comfortable inthe, just living, experiencing, if that makes any sense.

Interviewer: It does for me. Let me say it back, see if I got it. You gotdecentered constantly.

Andrew: Yes!Bob: I, every week we kind of had a different theory, and I used

those, tried to coach, using that theory . . . So like, you know,if [an author] said students should be leading the discussion, Iwould do it, even if things went bad . . . I would go through theprocess of it. Or like if [the instructor] said we should be moreauthoritative, [I] would come in that day with an iron fist. Sothat way I was always constantly changing my views on whatreally indeed works and what doesn’t.

As Bob indicates, trying out different theories in coaching became one of the morevivid connections between theory, practice, and living citizenship. Despite Bob’s try-ing out new theories each week, he came to see limitations of theories for practice.Maureen nicely captures the limitation of directly ‘‘applying’’ theory to practice inthe following exchange:

Essentially, if you’re going with some kind of all encompassing angle, it’snot gonna do it. Um . . . say you have a, a preconceived notion or . . .theory of what particular practice is gonna work with your group . . . Um,if you go on with that and try to impose that without even regarding thedifferent circumstances, um, it’s not going to work.

Some undergraduates found that the ‘‘contradicting theories’’ were confusingand made coaching even harder, because they provided no definite foundation to

Teaching and Learning Democracy 289

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

05 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

stand on. A major frustration involved the disjuncture between the expectationsof what is ‘‘supposed to happen’’ versus what actually happens. Recalling her firstday of working with young people, Jasmine observed:

I was thinking about all the philosophy we learned, about you know,about these genius[es], you know, Freire and Horton, and all these peopleand thinking, what would they do? And then the kids come in, andall those theories go out the door and you’re left with thesekids . . . (laughter) . . . And you know, you’re trying to do these, these greatthings, you know, give them all these opportunities. But some of my kidshave never been in it before, so they’re not used to taking authority andrunning with it, they’re just like what? No. I’m gonna slack off until youpunish me . . .

Most undergraduates commented on the experience of being ‘‘left with thesekids’’ and not knowing what to do. This ‘‘not knowing what to do’’ was a commonrefrain—and a common source of struggle—among undergraduates. As Georgestated:

But PA is structured differently, I didn’t know how to react. Do youdiscipline them? Because this is supposed to be about doing their ownthing. But I liked some sessions [because] they did get to do their ownthing. Other days were more a struggle. There were moments, like whenthe group was not on track, and I didn’t know what to do. There isalways a second to pause, like what should I be doing here?

I submit that this moment of pause, of asking ‘‘what should I be doing here,’’ is a keypedagogical and democratic moment. When confronted with the situation of being‘‘left with these kids’’ and not knowing what to do, coaches typically improvised,negotiating in the moment to craft a workable group. This element of reactionand improvisation never went away. Even further, because the coach did not knowwhat to do, they turned to their group and asked ‘‘what should we be doing here?’’ Inthis moment, the democratic group comes into being: no longer is it just undergrad-uates leading their groups of younger students, the group begins to work together ona common issue (even if the common issue is asking the question: how are we goingto work together?). By the end of the term, students recognized that theory providesa way to make sense of and critique their experiences and readings, but it does notconstitute a ‘‘blueprint’’ for practice. Julie commented that the class ‘‘gave us a wayof critiquing and looking at the stuff we read, and the theory, and the things wediscussed. And when you live it you see more of the practicality.’’ Here we can seethe important tensions between theory and practice, class and practicum, idealsand reality.

Narratives of Mastering Political Skills

While political skills are often seen as a crucial component to political engagement,Mary Kirlin (2003) notes that there is ‘‘a surprising lack of information about whatskills are, how to measure them, and when they begin to be developed.’’ Politicalskills are typically seen as a critical element—together with elements of knowledge,

290 R. W. Hildreth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

05 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

attitudes, and dispositions—for active responsible citizenship (Patrick 2000).Political skills, in the most basic sense, are a necessary resource for being politicallyefficacious (see Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995). Herbert Dreyfus and StuartDreyfus (2004) offer a broader understanding of skills in terms of a ‘‘performer’s’’abilities to read problematic situations, to apply principles, to make decisions, andto act. In this sense, political skills are much more than a resource, but they representthe embodiment of knowledge, motivation, feelings of efficacy, and decision makingin action.

Undergraduates reported learning a wide variety of political, civic, and socialskills. Despite this variety, all undergraduates remarked that the most difficult andimportant skill they learned was facilitating a democratic group. Democratic groupfacilitation is a complex and often shifting skill set of working with others to makedecisions, to work together, and to develop projects democratically. Individual skillswithin this broader set include: running meetings, managing group dynamics, negoti-ation, conflict resolution, decision making, holding others accountable, and criticalevaluation. An effective democratic group is a precondition for implementing aneffective political action project. For undergraduates, an important part of creatingan effective group involved helping young group members deal with intended andunintended consequences of taking political action in the ‘‘real world.’’ There wereoften ‘‘set-backs’’ like having plans rejected by administrators, being ignored by localpublic figures and getting bogged down in administrative requirements. These ‘‘set-backs’’ were not necessarily ‘‘failures,’’ but offered groups—and their coaches—important opportunities for teaching and learning.

Every undergraduate interviewed described coaching Public Achievement as anongoing process in which they improved their group facilitation skills over time.While group dynamics were a source of constant frustration, as the year went onmost coaches gradually improved their abilities to read, to react, and to interact withtheir groups. These coaches found a mediated practice that matched their owngroup, as opposed to ‘‘trying out’’ a new theory, or an ‘‘all encompassing angle’’each week. Even though undergraduates did not name this mediated practice as askill, they did, in various ways, highlight the importance of the ability to ‘‘read,’’to ‘‘observe,’’ to ‘‘listen,’’ or to ‘‘notice’’ how their group was doing each momentand then be ‘‘flexible’’ to ‘‘react’’ and adjust plans accordingly. Sophie notes thatthe most important skill she learned was flexibility: the ‘‘ability to work under press-ure, and ability to step back once in a while.’’ She continues:

I feel like they set the tone, and then you respond to it, you first choosewhat you want to do, but also [have] possible different responses if thingsgo wrong. And like he said, if they’re crazy one day, well, you’re gonnatry and get them more structured. And if they’re like, raring to go, thenyou build off that. And so it’s, it’s kind of, just see where they are first.

In this sense, Sophie is developing a number of skills and responses that she adaptsto changing circumstances. Although the process of figuring out this practice wasfrustrating, it ultimately became a source of considerable learning.

Undergraduates noted that two skills in particular helped ‘‘move’’ their grouptowards democratic practice: asking guided questions and evaluating. Asking stra-tegic questions allowed coaches to guide the group while at the same time givingyoung people democratic control over the course of the group’s work. Evaluation

Teaching and Learning Democracy 291

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

05 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

allowed the group and coach to recognize and adjust—together—when things werenot going smoothly. Over time, this sort of reflective questioning and evaluationhelped the group work more or less smoothly and democratically. Most importantly,coaches used the skills of questioning and evaluating to help young people under-stand the public and political dimensions of their actions within the group and inthe world.

While students clearly developed certain skills in working with their groups, animportant test of skill mastery is ‘‘transference’’ (Dewey 1997). In this light, inter-views asked undergraduates whether they ‘‘tried out’’ any of the skills they learnedand then regularly used them in other domains of their lives. A bulk of the intervie-wees (18) reported some degree of skill transfer. However, vast majority (13) typi-cally described this transfer in terms of social skills: they took skills learnedthrough coaching and used them in nonpolitical activities. For instance, manyundergraduates reported developing their abilities to ask better questions. Clarissatold a story about how she interacts differently with her father. Before the course,she and her dad tended to ‘‘butt heads a lot’’ because they had very different politicalviews. Now, she reports using questions to ‘‘get my point across, instead of just goingup against him.’’ Likewise, she and others shared how they pay closer attention tothe ‘‘teachable moments’’ in everyday group interactions, and they use questionsto capture the learning potential of these moments with their friends. Relatedly,13 undergraduates discussed how they came to interact in group settings differently:paying closer attention to group dynamics and intervening in order to help organizepeople to work together. One student reported interacting with her children differ-ently. She stated that she learned how to listen to her sons in a new way, and thatshe was able to have more ‘‘real’’ conversations than usual. This new sense of inter-action culminated when she had conversations with her son about the nature ofdemocracy and authority. By themselves, these small practices and social skillsmay not immediately strike us as examples of political engagement. While certainlysmall moments, these practices and skills offer significant indicators of undergrad-uate learning and development. In addition, the pervasive transfer of skills fromthe course to the contexts of undergraduates’ everyday lives points to the promisethese practices and skills might have for political engagement, if used in public—rather than just private—contexts, and framed in political—not just social—terms.

There were several coaches who began the process of transferring their skillsinto more public contexts. A number of coaches reported evaluating with theirco-workers or peers about how to best run organizations or institutions. Thefollowing exchange with Kelly is exemplary:

Kelly: I do ask a lot more questions of people, you know, why are wedoing this, what does this gain us? It’s more of an evaluationtype. Especially living in a fraternity, you do stuff just becausethe older guys taught you to do that. Is this really the best wayto do it? But yeah, I think that’s a part that I have taken on, isthat evaluation type.

Interviewer: Ok, so what did you learn, in trying on this new way of being,this evaluation person?

Kelly: What’d I learn?Interviewer: Yeah, alright, let me see if I got it. You took the way of evalu-

ation, or the way that evaluation is done at PA, as coach and

292 R. W. Hildreth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

05 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

[in] class, and you’ve taken those ways of doing things andbrought those lets say to your fraternity, if I heard it right.And you tried it there. You’ve done it now for a bit, now,maybe,

Kelly: Yeah, a couple months.Interviewer: And you look back on that, did trying it out at your fraternity

teach you anything?Kelly: Yeah, it’s something that I knew but never really realized,

people are very happy with the status quo. And, until youbring a [to] light that maybe some other way is better, or thatchange is out there, it’s probably just going to keep on going,the status quo, and until somebody shakes it up a little bit andasks, like why are we doing it this way? But you know, yougotta question things sometimes, why do we always do itthe same way all the time. I guess that’s something that I’velearned to do, is to question, question things a lot more,instead of just taking somebody, something that’s someonereads in a book or writes in a book or says on the news,and taking that as factual.

In my analysis, Kelly’s last answer demonstrates the fluid transfer of skills andattitudes from his class experience to the context of his fraternity. He shows thathe can seamlessly use skills developed in Public Achievement in other contexts, whilebeing able to name, to reflect, and to assess their use in these different contexts.

There are subtle but important differences between Clarissa’s negotiations withher father and Kelly’s evaluation with his fraternity brothers. Clarissa’s use of theskill of questioning, while negotiating relations of power, does not affect anyonebesides her and her father. Kelly, on the other hand, uses this skill to publicly chal-lenge accepted practices. He also names this skill in public terms and ties it to a socialrole. But more than just skill transference, we can see Kelly taking on a social role asan ‘‘evaluation person’’ within his fraternity. Though it is not entirely clear, Kelly’ssentiment that you ‘‘gotta question things sometimes’’ points towards the develop-ment of pro-civic motivations and identity formation. Kelly was compelled to ques-tion; evaluation was becoming an integral part of his core sense of self. Instead ofblindly accepting existing practices and traditions, Kelly challenged other fraternitymembers and accepted institutional practices. It is important to remember that skills,in themselves, do not promote political engagement; they must be framed in terms ofpolitics, connected to pro-civic motivations and activated by problematic situationsin the world.

The Development of Pro-Civic Motivations

Even if undergraduates develop these skills, they are much less likely to be effective ifthey are not connected to a real emphasis on building students’ motivations to par-ticipate in politics, including developing their sense of political identity. Pro-civicmotivations consist in a complex orientation towards politics that involves one’sgoals, desires, interests, sense of efficacy, and core identity (Colby et al. 2003).A basic way to assess such motivations is to simply ask undergraduates if they aremore likely to become involved as a result of this experience. To further test such

Teaching and Learning Democracy 293

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

05 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

statements, we asked a series of questions to determine the extent to which under-graduates were actually ‘‘living’’ these self-reported changes in motivation. Likeskills, we asked for stories of transference—that is whether this new sense of motiv-ation was ‘‘tried out’’ in other domains of their lives. The findings suggest that mostundergraduates think about politics, citizenship, and their sense of involvement dif-ferently as a result of their experience. There were only a select few examples, how-ever, where undergraduates actually became more politically engaged.

First, one of the most interesting findings related to pro-civic motivationsinvolved how young people’s excitement, interest, and actual work on their politicalprojects provoked college students to rethink their own understanding of politicalaction and their sense of themselves as political actors. Ironically, while undergrad-uates were supposed to be ‘‘teaching’’ or ‘‘inspiring’’ young people to become politi-cally involved, it was the young people who pushed undergraduates to reconsidertheir sense of politics and political involvement.

Despite the detailed and numerous frustrations of working with young people,many undergraduates also found coaching extremely meaningful. Through the con-stantly negotiated interaction with their group, the young people and coachesdeveloped authentic relationships with each other: some coaches came to genuinelycare about ‘‘their kids.’’ Within these relationships, coaches also learned a great dealabout and from their group members. They learned about how their young peoplelearn, what they care about, how busy they are, and their economic and social situa-tions. They learned from the young people in their group the promise and excitementof taking action. A crucial element of this learning was that the individual young per-sons and=or groups often transcended what the coach thought was possible for themto do. As Isaac recalled:

It was meaningful to see some of the students when they were eitherpressed into a corner or if I pressed them into a corner, emerge with prob-ably statements and ideas that were beyond what they may have expectedfrom themselves. I think I found it especially meaningful because youhave the good students who will be there and will always sort of provideto the discussion and always or mostly be engaged. But then there’s thestudents who sort of sit on the periphery and are either joking aroundor they’re not taking it all that seriously, but every once in a while you’llpress them and they’ll come up with an idea that’s so incredibly creativethat it’s stunning, in a way. And I find that to be extremely meaningful.

Fiona said that her students ‘‘taught me [about] the things that people canaccomplish. Because, who would have thought that we could have pulled off a[multischool] gathering in four weeks. And it could go so well.’’ Others, such asAndrew, were inspired from the process of working with youth as opposed to anyspecific end accomplishments the young people achieved.

It’s the feeling of actually contributing and getting kids to think aboutissues, and, I had to dig a little deeper for my group too, cause they chosea topic at first that they didn’t really like, because they had to choose agroup. And at the half way point, it’s like, alright what do you want todo, what [bugs] you about this, what would you like to change? Youknow, do you like the (unclear) people? Well, no. Well, what interests

294 R. W. Hildreth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

05 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

you? The war in Iraq. What do you think about it? We don’t like it. Goon, I don’t like it either. I would get excited, and to see, see kids get pas-sionate about something that they want to change, that’s dangerous.That’s what’s great.

In a very real sense we can see how coaches fed off and were inspired by the students’energy, enthusiasm, and commitment.

In many cases, participating in the course and working with their group invitedcoaches to rethink their own ideas about politics and their own sense of politicalagency. At the most basic, undergraduates did not want to be hypocritical. They feltthat they could not encourage—or expect—their group members to be active citizenswithout questioning the extent of their own involvement. As Bob relayed, ‘‘I learneda lot about not being hypocritical. I tell them, oh when you grow up you need tobe active, and then, [I need to] figure out ways that I can be active politically.And I’ve taken a lot of knowledge and responsibility in that.’’ In some cases, coachesfound a role model for political engagement and as a source of political hope in theirteam’s enthusiasm and action. When asked why coaching is meaningful, Clarissaanswered:

I’d say, it’s given me a sense of hope that I lost for a while, cause it’sreally easy to become cynical, especially . . . with the whole war and thingsgoing on, but it does definitely give you the idea that well at least peopleare trying to make a difference. And that’s one [of] the best things that Isee, like these are young people that are going to be working towards afuture . . .

Many other interviewees mirrored Clarissa’s views, finding inspiration in possibilitiesfor citizen action from their young group members. Kelly stated that his experienceextended his sense of citizenship to include action:

And politics have always been a big part of my life, and that’s [my] majornow, it’s really been cool. But, I’ve always thought about things like that.I’ve always studied it, and I’ve always been really interested in it, and nowthis class has kind of put me in the mind set that you know it’s great tolearn all these things, and you know discuss them and stuff like that,cause it’s always been a big part of my family, especially. But sometimesyou just gotta do something about it, sometimes you just, you know, yougotta go out there and do it myself . . .

Kelly obviously already thought of himself as a political being but now sees action asa necessary part of ‘‘being political.’’ Again, we hear the phrase ‘‘you gotta do some-thing about it’’ indicating a sense of compulsion to act. Combined with Kelly’s storyabout questioning his fraternity brothers, his statement demonstrates that his isactually ‘‘living’’ this identity as a political actor (not just talking about it).

Despite undergraduates’ expressed desires to become more politically engaged,only a select few (5) reported acting on this desire. As with the mastery of skills,the ‘‘test’’ of changes in identity involved seeing whether undergraduates translatedthis new sense of politics and agency into action in the world. The small number ofstudents who translated their new commitments into concrete action reveals some of

Teaching and Learning Democracy 295

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

05 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

the important complexity implicit between learning, doing, and becoming politicallyengaged. An interesting finding is that every undergraduate who reported changes intheir own engagement was already involved in other political activities. In this sensethey had ‘‘ready-made’’ opportunities to ‘‘try out’’ what they had learned throughthe course and coaching. This speaks to the importance of having multiple andvaried ‘‘pathways’’ to practice citizenship and to further political engagement (seeWalker 2002).

Fiona represents an example of someone who is both becoming more involved inpolitics and sees herself differently as a political actor. Before her experience in Pub-lic Achievement, Fiona reported that she was not involved in politics. Reflecting onher experiences in the course and practicum, she offered:

I think about citizenship more. Like what it means to be a citizen, and not[just] in the sense of politics, like I don’t think about politics like what I’mgonna vote, or what the issues, but in the sense of, the world of politics.Like, we go to a restaurant and our service is bad or something like that,and I’m more likely to go talk to somebody about it, and say just so thatpeople are aware of what’s going on, and acting more like a citizen in thatway. Like being more . . . I don’t know what you call it, but just beingmore aware of what’s going on in the world and how like my city runs.And my neighborhood, like thinking about myself not as me, but in aworld, in a neighborhood, you know . . .

Fiona was not only thinking about citizenship more, and in different ways, she wasable to articulate how she was living citizenship and practicing politics in her every-day life. In her interviews and journals, she related stories about living as a citizen inher everyday life and becoming more active in formal politics. Fiona’s concept of cit-izenship stretches from speaking up in restaurants, to deliberately meeting her neigh-bors, to becoming a more informed voter (she reported voting in local elections forthe first time). Asked if she sees herself differently as a civic or political actor, Fionareplied:

I definitely have, I know. That the whole PA framework and way ofthinking about the world has definitely changed how I think about theworld now. Like I see myself as an active player in the world now, andsomebody who can make a difference, and who’s gonna try, at least, likebe active. Like, I always want to talk about stuff all the time, and they’relike, ‘‘Fiona, we don’t need to be talking about this right now!’’ Youknow we’ll be at the bar drinking, or whatever, and I’ll bring up all theseissues, [about] politics and then democracy, and then like everything Ibring up, now. And they don’t want to talk about it very much, but someof my friends do . . .

Fiona was certainly inspired and represents an inspiring example of the potential forthis pedagogy and political practice. Nonetheless, Fiona was in a distinct minority ofstudents who became differently and more extensively politically engaged followingtheir experiences in the course and practicum.

Moreover, not all narratives of personal change are positive. For at least threeundergraduates, the difficulties of working with young people in schools made them

296 R. W. Hildreth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

05 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

more cynical and disheartened about politics, youth, and political action. Elaine, forinstance, became extremely critical of Public Achievement. She states that:

I don’t like Public Achievement. I think it’s another way to indoctrinatekids and to trick them into thinking they have a lot of power when, infact, they don’t. Nothing about it is revolutionary because even if thesessions themselves are radical, there’s no space for it to extend pastthe sessions. It’s difficult to do radical work if you’re in the confines ofa classroom, especially a Roman Catholic classroom. There’s no supportsystem for kids to feel like they’re doing great things because PA ingrainsin you the notion that if you don’t complete a project, you have not donePA. I’m sorry, but I feel like PA was just a big hindrance to our group.

This criticism, however, also reveals that Elaine learned through her experiences inboth Public Achievement and the course. She makes a critical assessment of PublicAchievement based on her understanding about the nature of democracy derivedfrom course readings. Jasmine, also, ended her experience:

Unbelievably cynical about PA. Just not believing, not having a lot offaith in it. Simply because you’re putting these [college students] out withtwo months training, having to read all these contradicting theories andthen put into this school setting. What are they gonna do? Some peopleare ready for it but some people aren’t. I know I wasn’t. I know a lot ofother coaches that weren’t. And to try to instigate these kids into doingcommunity things with such limits, and coming from the school, first ofall. You’ve gotta break those barriers at school to be able to break any-thing in the community. But then again, the optimistic side of me comesin and says working in the school and working with what you have andworking with a little knowledge that you derived from these theories, youstill did it, you still survived.

Transcripts like this are difficult to read, but very instructive. For faculty membersthat incorporate experiential or service-learning pedagogies into their courses, thispassage confirms how undergraduates’ experiences ‘‘in the field’’ can be difficult,emotionally charged, and full of unexpected outcomes. In particular, they point toa key tension in my argument. I have suggested that the ‘‘crisis’’ of ‘‘not knowingwhat to do’’ is a key element of learning and democracy. However, Jasmine appar-ently never overcame this initial crisis. Both transcripts highlight the need for betterorientation to the realities of this type of activity and more careful reflection so thatcollege students can process and make sense of difficult experiences without ‘‘turningoff’’ and away from politics.

Discussion

As a whole, the findings from this study offer a view into the significant, andsometimes profound, learning experiences that occurred through class and coachingPublic Achievement. But what are the implications of these findings? What do theyteach us about democratic education and political engagement? In what ways canthey be used to improve current practice? I argue that the findings can be used to

Teaching and Learning Democracy 297

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

05 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

strengthen a grounded theory of democratic education and political engagement(Strauss and Corbin 1990).

First, I advance that a key part of the pedagogical effectiveness of these experiencesis the inherent ambiguity and difficulty of democratic action in the ‘‘real world.’’Undergraduates genuinely had to struggle with their group to figure out how to worktogether democratically and to design and to implement a political action project. Inthis sense, undergraduates had to ‘‘step outside the box’’ of normal ways of being a col-lege student. In stepping outside of the box, undergraduates developed skills, betterunderstandings of the relationship of theory and practice, and pro-civic motivations.These ambiguities and difficulties also reveal a danger: undergraduates need to besupported and have adequate time to reflect on such difficult experiences. Guidedreflection enables undergraduates to place themselves and their actions within aconceptual frame: to develop new ideas, to see their experience in context, and to thinkthrough the impact of their learning for other domains of their everyday life.

Second, it is evident that undergraduates were inspired by their students.While the young people did not ‘‘teach’’ undergraduates democratic content, theyprovided a living example of democratic action. Politics came to be seen as possible,at least on the local level. Moreover, undergraduates were inspired by seeing theirgroup members transcend expectations for action, commitment, and learning. Interms of practice, this finding points to the need to orient undergraduates to thepossibilities that—and ways in which—community members are important sourcesof learning.

While the findings from this study point to key pedagogical strategies, they alsoleave us with an important question: what do these learning experiences tell us abouthow undergraduates become politically engaged? There is considerable evidence thatundergraduates learned important political skills through the interaction between thecourse and practicum. It is also evident that many of the students now think differ-ently about politics and themselves as public actors. It is less clear whether thisexperience encouraged undergraduates to actually change their behavior. Only a sel-ect few undergraduates reported becoming more involved in political activities orframed their new ways of acting in public or political terms. As noted, this minoritygroup had preexisting pathways to engagement. What about the other students inthe class, who detailed rich learning experiences, but they not necessarily stories ofsignificant political change? The majority of interviewees reported transferring skillsthey learned through the course and practicum, but they did not use those skills forpolitical purposes or frame their actions in public terms. In fact, when many under-graduates were asked whether what they were doing was political engagement, theydid not mention these stories of transferring skills in their answers. Nonetheless, Iassert that the stories of Clarissa not arguing with her father and Kelly evaluatingwith his fraternity are significant in thinking about political engagement. They rep-resent a continuum of democratic learning. In fact, it may simply be unrealistic toexpect a leap along this continuum, (for example, from coaching PA to being a polit-ical activist), especially in this short time frame. If viewed on a continuum, the trans-fer of political skills may serve as an intermediate step on the path towards politicalengagement. As such it may bridge the divide that so many youth feel between theworld of politics and their lives. If anything, we need to make this political learning,often small, hidden and unnamed, a more explicit, visible, and relevant part of ourwork to engage undergraduates in political action. In addition, students shouldbe offered more than individual and isolated opportunities like the course and

298 R. W. Hildreth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

05 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

practicum documented here. Instead, we need varied and multiple opportunities forstudents to ‘‘practice’’ citizenship, to develop a broader sense of themselves as citi-zens and a stronger commitment to lifelong political engagement.

Appendix A: Individual and Group Interview Protocol

Description of Interviewing Method:

These interviews are designed to disclose the individuals’ experiences—what theywere like, how they made sense, and what they mean. The interview technique isbased on the concept of dialogue. This means that the interviewer and intervieweeare engaged in conversation to coproduce a better understanding of the respondents’experiences. Careful listening and follow-up questions are even more important asthe structured questions. The interviewer often will want to reframe respondentsanswers back and ask for more details about a particular facet of experience. It isalso vitally important to have an orientation to openness. This means that the inter-viewer should not take any concepts, ideas, or experiences for granted. When askingfollow-ups, always ground questions back to concrete experience (e.g. describe amoment when coaching was particularly hard).

The questions are semistructured to guide how the conversation develops. Theinitial questions ask respondents to describe their experiences. Special attention ispaid to context. Then, respondents asked how they made sense of their experiencesand what it meant to them. Finally, we asked about learning and individual trans-formation. These questions ask if students have ‘‘tried out’’ anything they havelearned through this course in other domains of their lives. Follow-up questionsshould ground these stories of change in specific PA experiences, and then follow-up questions about change should ask for ever-increasing details about stories ofpersonal change.

Questions:

Group Interviews (designed to Disclose the Context of Class and Coaching PA):

Domains

A. ClassB. Field Experience (Public Achievement Group=St. Bernard’s School)C. Connections between class and coaching PA (may be part of discussion of

A and B)D. Thinking about politics

Questions:

1. What was it like to be you when you were in class? (Try to encourage groupdiscussion.) Possible follow-ups:. How did you experience yourself in a class that explicitly was trying to be

democratic?. How did you experience collectively deciding the requirements?. How did you experience evaluating class throughout the year?. What was it like to grade yourself?

2. What was it like to do=be coach? (Try to encourage group discussion)

Teaching and Learning Democracy 299

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

05 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

3. What did the kids in your group teach you?4. Questions on the connections between class and coaching: e.g. Did you bring any

concepts or theories from class=PA guide (‘‘green book’’) into your work as acoach? Which? How? To what effect? (ask for concrete examples).

5. When you hear the word politics, what does that mean to you? In what wayswould you describe what are you doing as political engagement?

6. In what ways do you think about politics, the public world, and your place in itdifferently now that you have participated in the class and as a coach?

Individual interviews (designed to disclose the individual experiences of coaching PA):

Domains

A. CoachB. Self (development)C. Doing politics=being political

Questions:

1. What best describes what you do when you are coaching?a. What are the most important skills for you as a coach?b. Have you noticed that you have developed any coaching skills over the course

of the year? Which do you need improvement on?c. What kind of knowledge is important for you as a coach? Is there anything

you know now that you didn’t know before (coaching=class)?2. In what ways is coaching meaningful or important for you?3. Since you began coaching, what reflections, if any, have you make about your

own education or educational biography? (you can also substitute politicalbiography)

4. Coaching is a role; throughout this year you have learned to take on this role andmaster it to some degree. You take on other roles in life: student, employee,friend, sibling, etc. Have you tried out anything you have learned in PA in otherroles or domains of your life since you have coached? Which? How have youdone them differently? What did you learn by trying this new way of being?

5. Are you in any way different since you began coaching? How do you see yourselfnow?a. Are you politically or civically involved in any new or different ways since you

began coaching? In what ways?b. Since you began coaching, what reflections, if any, have you made about your

own political biography?c. Do you see yourself differently as a civic or political actor? In what ways?

6. What other political, community, or service activities or organizations are youinvolved in? In what ways are they similar or different than PA?

Notes

1. All names are pseudonyms. I would like to thank Rick Battistoni, Harry Boyte, JamesFarr, John Moore, Terri Wilson, and the JPSE anonymous reviewers for critical commentaryearlier versions of this article. I would also like to thank Chris Drury, Nick Longo, and RickBattistoni for helping me think through the research methods. Ross Velure-Roholt andMichael Baizerman not only conducted the interviews but helped with data analysis andfar-reaching conversations about the nature of democratic education. Finally, this study

300 R. W. Hildreth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

05 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

would not be possible without the generous support of The Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancement of Teaching. Special thanks are due to Elizabeth Beaumont at Carnegie.

2. This is a local study in the larger Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teach-ing’s Political Education Project. This Carnegie project is a study of 21 innovative courses andprograms designed to foster political engagement in college students.

3. Coach is a term that was coined by young people in Public Achievement. As opposedto titles such as facilitator, teacher, leader, mentor—coach was a concept that they could easilygrasp. It is also a role in which the team or group is responsible for ‘‘being on the field’’ anddoing their own work in the ‘‘game’’ of politics.

4. These two versions of the course were taught by different instructors (myself in 2002–2003 and James Farr in 2003–2004). By examining two different versions of this course, wehoped to examine the core pedagogies of the course, controlling for the abilities of the parti-cular instructor. The interviewees were randomly selected from the larger pool of students whovolunteered to be interviewed. There were 21 total students in the 2002–2003 version of thecourse and 17 in 2003–2004.

References

Billig, Shelley. 2000. ‘‘Research on K–12 School-Based Service-Learning: The EvidenceBuilds.’’ Phi Delta Kappan 81(9): 658–664.

Clandinin, D. Jean and F. Michael Connelly. 2000. Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story inQualitative Research. San Franciso: Jossey Bass.

Colby, Anne, Thomas Ehrlich, Elizabeth Beaumont, and Jason Stephens. 2003. EducatingCitizens: Preparing America’s Undergraduates for Lives of Moral Responsibility.San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Dewey, John. 1997. Experience and Education. New York: Touchstone. Internally referencedas EE.

Dreyfus, Hubert L. and Stuart E. Dreyfus. 2004. ‘‘The Ethical Implications of the Five-StageSkill-Acquisition Model.’’ Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 24:3 (June): 251–264.

Giles, Dwight and Janet Eyler. 1997. Where’s the Learning in Service-learning? San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Hepburn, Mary. 2000. ‘‘Service Learning and Civic Education in the Schools: What DoesRecent Research Tell Us?’’ In Education for Civic Engagement in Democracy, eds. SheilahMann and John J. Patrick. Bloomington: ERIC.

Kirlin, Mary. 2003. ‘‘The Role of Civic Skills in Fostering Civic Engagement.’’ Circle WorkingPaper. Accessed on August 15, 2004. http://civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP06Kirlin.pdf.

Kvale, Steinar. 1996. InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Markus, G., J. Howard, and D. King. 1993. ‘‘Integrating Community Service and ClassroomInstruction Enhances Learning: Results from an Experiment.’’ Educational Evaluationand Policy Analysis 15(Winter): 410–419.

Patrick, John J. 2000. ‘‘Introduction.’’ In Education for Civic Engagement in Democracy, eds.Sheilah Mann and John J. Patrick. Bloomington: ERIC.

Polkinghorne, Donald E. 1988. Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. Albany, NY:SUNY Press.

Stewart, David and Algis Mickunas. 1990 [1974]. Exploring Phenomenology: A Guide to theField and Its Literature. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.

Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded TheoryProcedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Van Manen, Max. 1990. Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action SensitivePedagogy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality:CivicVoluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Teaching and Learning Democracy 301

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

05 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Walker, Tobi. 2002. ‘‘Service as a Pathway to Political Participation: What Research TellsUs.’’ Applied Developmental Science 6:4 (Oct.): 183–188.

Waterman, Alan S., ed. 1997. Service-Learning: Applications from the Research. London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

302 R. W. Hildreth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

05 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014